HealyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Victory!!!
Posts: 1,059
|
Post by HealyHoya on Jul 1, 2008 15:54:18 GMT -5
Expecting better service from the HHC is understandable. It may not happen but it's a reasonable expectation.
Each off-season for the past three years, there have been a bevy of threads started about III, salary, facilities and our ability to compete with Kentucky or Texas A$M or insert major conference state school with good-to-great football program.
Can we compete with these schools financially? Will the BE splinter due to football revenue? Has III's contract been extended? Will it be extended? Why haven't we heard anything about the extension? (Of course, those questions were answered). Why didn't the HHC and/or GU athletic department do a better job of striking while the Final Four iron was hot a couple years ago? And so forth...
Well, the answer to all of these well-placed questions, or at the very least AN answer to all these well-placed questions, is money.
You want III to stay here, not jump to, say, Oregon or Stanford, Oklahoma State or Nebraska, North Carolina State or Miami? Well, then send the HHC your contribution.
I certainly understand the "sticker shock" and that individual financial constraints may prevail, but this is how our side of this game works.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 1, 2008 22:44:57 GMT -5
I appreciate the point about needing facilities improvements, but I see a disconnect between the increased giving levels and facilities for the simple reason that GU has not put any teeth into efforts to improve basketball facilities. Tuning back in to the last substantive discussion of facilities almost one year ago, there has not been any discussion of follow-up to the Old Boys Club's rejection of the as-yet to be published design of the arena after it was said that the design had too many windows. To an outside observer like me, the lack of public will by GU on this makes it seem like there is little interest in getting it done. Compounding the problem is that new needs/projects come along and get approved, and the facility is pushed back another spot in the queue. The result of all of it is the same as it was under AD Lang, and, even if you wanted to give money to the facility, you can't because the University won't allow it, and won't take your money for the facility unless there are 7 zeros behind it. It is a double-edged sword of paying lip service to improving facilities on the one hand and simply refusing to allow it to happen on another.
The need for increased giving is a bit odd in some sense because the hoops program as it appears to be designed should have consistent spending adjusting for inflation since there appears to be very little spending toward big ticket items, be it an overseas trip, plane, new bus, practice facilities, etc. Additionally, we have barely enough players this year to play pick-up, so spending on refreshments, travel, etc. should be less, again adjusting for inflation. I have a tough time believing that $250/seat increases in some cases is a COLA adjustment to be honest. So, the question becomes -- where is this money going?
Is it going to a practice facility as it should be? Is it being spent on big ticket items as it should be? I don't know because we're not given that info. Is the money going to other, non-basketball uses in a classic bait and switch/rob Peter to pay Paul operation even though the money is raised in connection with basketball tickets? How much is going to dual use where we bear the costs and hoops does not get most of the benefits? Again, I don't know because we're not given that info in a substantive form. But, I do have my suspicions because all of this new money supposedly in the program isn't showing up in any public way that makes sense, and there is no public discussion of where it has gone. It isn't being spent on a full time HHC staff person, as none are listed on the GUHoyas Directory. I would suspect that we would find the money in the new giving to hire a full-time staff person dedicated exclusively to the HHC.
Now, Bernard's letter tells us that the "[increased giving]...is essential to remain competitive in the upper echelon..." How? What do we need to spend on this season that we didn't spend money on last season or the season before? Also, the increased giving "[is] essential to operating our basketball program." Again, how? Shouldn't our spending decrease now that we have fewer players or stay relatively stagnant given inflation? What are the additional operating needs that are not being met but necessitate this level of increase? Why weren't these addressed earlier?
I am not saying that the increases are bad or shouldn't have been put in place because I want to see more giving. I am just saying that something doesn't make sense given the lack of meat in the public pitch by Muir and other seemingly contradictory actions and inactions.
I know that this post may take a beating even among people who claim to support the construction of a basketball facility. I don't care. I realize that they may seem impolite to the people to whom we are giving money in McD and paid tuition and others. Again, I don't care. To be clear, I don't blame HHC volunteers for a number of reasons that don't need to be listed.
Sometimes GU has to be embarrassed into doing something, and the on-campus facility is one of these things. Sadly, not even the prospect of weights flying through the floor did it. GU's inaction on facilities has hurt the program, and the mixed messages have been misleading at best to donors. GU pays people to find solutions to issues like facilities, and, for years now, nothing material beyond Band-Aid maintenance has been done. Die hards like me are being strung along as we hope for an on-campus facility, and our basketball money is dropped into a McDonough vacuum.
Apologies in advance for touching the third rail of HoyaTalk and for hijacking the thread somewhat.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 2, 2008 1:57:50 GMT -5
Jersey, you know I often disagree with you.
But in general your post makes sense. This increase would be much more welcomed with a public commitment to the practice facility. At any cost.
I can not endorse this idea any more. Raise the prices but show some progress. And I say this not to Muir but to DeGioia.
|
|
|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Jul 2, 2008 8:53:06 GMT -5
Fellas, it was only three years ago that the program was losing money. We need this program to support and pay for all of the other programs as well. If the athletic dept. ran at break even, the entire dept., I think people would be thrilled.
I have no problem with the increase, they just need to communicate it more clearly and I would prefer gradual annual increases versus the past two which have been large percentage increases. We would still be at the same point, it would just be more gradual & palatable.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Jul 2, 2008 9:40:39 GMT -5
Ambassador --- since most of the increase in ticket cost is coming through increased donation requirements to the Hoop Club, rather than directly into the Athletic department via ticket sales increases, doesn't that mean that we should be asking the Hoop Club (of which most of us are members) to tell us how the money is going to be spent? Furthermore, doesn't that mean that the Hoop Club (i.e. us) has say and control in how it is to be spent? And finally, I don't think Muir at any point in the letter suggested the increase was for facilities.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 2, 2008 9:44:09 GMT -5
Ambassador --- since most of the increase in ticket cost is coming through increased donation requirements to the Hoop Club, rather than directly into the Athletic department via ticket sales increases, doesn't that mean that we should be asking the Hoop Club (of which most of us are members) to tell us how the money is going to be spent? Furthermore, doesn't that mean that the Hoop Club (i.e. us) has say and control in how it is to be spent? And finally, I don't think Muir at any point in the letter suggested the increase was for facilities. Another question, which basically asks the same thing. What is the relationship between Hoop Club money and the athletic department? I'm especially curious as to whether Hoop Club money can get earmarked for other sports.
|
|
|
Post by Fan Of The Game on Jul 2, 2008 11:03:24 GMT -5
I always assumed that our Hoop Club money was getting funneled to things like Neon's car, Ricky Roe's duffle bag, and Butch McRae's mom's new house, so I never really asked too many questions.
That said, there is an annual report that comes out from the Hoop Club showing revenue and how it was spent. Not sure when it comes out; I believe the Hoop Club fiscal year ended onMonday, so probably soon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2008 11:17:04 GMT -5
Some quick answers (which will probably only create more questions, but whatever...):
1. The Hoop Club "raises" the money, but has control over only a VERY small fraction of it (like, 5% or so). That fraction covers things like game watch parties (in DC and nationwide), the year-end team banquet, member benefits (i.e., your awesome bumper stickers), maybe a little to Hoya Blue to seed some of their activities each year, and a few other things.
2. All of the money goes to the athletic dept., and the AD decides how it gets spent. That includes allocating the money to to Hoop Club for the things mentioned above. All other dollars are controlled by the AD from start to finish. Includes all of the costs associated with running the program - team travel, equipment, medical supplies, Gatorade, you name it.
3. To Ambassador's point about facilities - I'll tie it in with your point about the team's operating needs: "Facilities" does not equate to "New Buildings". It includes operating needs that you and I and most of the other people here never see the details of: team offices, ticket operations, AD staff, etc. These things were - for so many years - crap. They are for the most part improving, and that's largely a result of new money. Your point about Operating Costs stagnating or adjusting for inflation is well-taken, but these back-of-the-house improvements wouldn't be happening if donation levels were still what they were 5 years ago.
4. There has never been a full-time staff member dedicated to the Hoop Club, and I don't know if there will be. But there have always been multiple Hoyas Unlimited Staff members who serve as liaisons to the Hoop Club.
5. Not an answer to a specific question posed in the thread, but I'll throw it out there: when Bernard Muir got here, he took over an athletic department that has one potential cash cow (basketball) and had operated on a shoestring budget for years - and it showed. Things are better now, but the reality is that there is still a TON of foundation to build. Think of it as buying a fixer-upper home: it'll be nice eventually, but you've got to tear it apart and start from the bottom to get it right. Raise money, build a working environment conducive to hiring good staff/coaches, etc., fix the administrative issues/become more customer-friendly, field some winning teams, raise some more money, work on plans for a new practice facility, host the NCAA regionals, raise more money, all while thinking about the long-term health of the basketball program AND the entire athletic department.
Final point (and one that I've made before): How much detail is the athletic department expected to disclose on spending? I work for a non-profit that raises external funds. While we are required to report back generally on how we spend those funds, we don't disclose detailed budgets at any point - nor should we be required to. I guess I feel like the AD and Hoop Club should be allowed the same leeway - let donors know that the funds are used for general operating costs, give specific examples once in a while, and move on.
I hope that helps - not trying to co-opt your thread hijack. Just thought I'd chime in on some things I know about (and believe me, there's MUCH more that I know absolutely nothing about).
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Jul 2, 2008 12:08:37 GMT -5
Cam -- thanks for the clarification on the relationship between Hoop Club and AD. Interesting stuff. As for your analogy, it's a good one. It's not like we can just redo the kitchen and call it a day here. Lots more that we need to do.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 2, 2008 13:13:23 GMT -5
Some quick answers (which will probably only create more questions, but whatever...): 1. The Hoop Club "raises" the money, but has control over only a VERY small fraction of it (like, 5% or so). Cam -- thanks for your lengthy explanation and your implicit endorsement of Bernie Muir. I have never met him but all the comments I hear are like yours. I think we got a winner in that guy. There isn't any chance ND will come calling to sweet talk him into going back to South Bend is there?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 2, 2008 13:24:14 GMT -5
My personal feeling is that if the Hoop Club disclosed spending, it would serve as a marketing tool.
Too many non-donors have said to me the reason they don't donate is that they don't understand where the money is going or who is benefitting. I realize there are generalities on the website, but I think disclosure of some of the costs, celebration of interesting purchases would make people more comfortable in giving and encourage them to give more.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 2, 2008 19:47:07 GMT -5
Thanks for the follow-up. A couple of points come to mind --
1. The profitability of the hoops program should be applauded, but basketball is not a cash cow. Even in our Final Four year, the amount we were in the green could only be counted in the tens of thousands of dollars. While additional investment may help our profitability and McD generally, we're probably not going to see a situation where hoops makes enough money to offset all of the red elsewhere in the McD budget. So, it seems to me that, while some organizational welfare funded by the HHC may help, some of the programs will have to find creative ways to get their own houses in order.
2. I don't quite understand the need to bury notification of members of "back of the house" improvements on the basis that they aren't at the forefront. Even with careful research, I can't see where they are. We still have 2 staff members assigned to the Development dept., with another TBD for the second year running. That data point suggests to me that long term thinking is not at the forefront, even when it might be. What's the harm in giving us 5 bullet points on what is being done in this area?
3. I know there has not been a full-timer assigned to the HHC, but why can't/shouldn't there be? I know that Allison Rubin, Kim Franks (when she was here), and Steve Alleva (possibly others, too) have been liasons to members. From my perspective, they have been helpful generally, and there has been value added, particularly from Steve. But, Steve naturally needs to have a role in several areas because he is good at what he does for McD. The result is that his ability to add greater value might not be maximized. If you assigned a staff member to the HHC for the purpose of streamlining/advancing the website, fundraising, brainstorming, etc., the results will pay for the staffperson's salary by several factors. In the midst of having several liasons, responsibilities for these functions will be blurred.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2008 9:22:09 GMT -5
Thanks for the follow-up. A couple of points come to mind -- 1. The profitability of the hoops program should be applauded, but basketball is not a cash cow. Even in our Final Four year, the amount we were in the green could only be counted in the tens of thousands of dollars. While additional investment may help our profitability and McD generally, we're probably not going to see a situation where hoops makes enough money to offset all of the red elsewhere in the McD budget. So, it seems to me that, while some organizational welfare funded by the HHC may help, some of the programs will have to find creative ways to get their own houses in order. 2. I don't quite understand the need to bury notification of members of "back of the house" improvements on the basis that they aren't at the forefront. Even with careful research, I can't see where they are. We still have 2 staff members assigned to the Development dept., with another TBD for the second year running. That data point suggests to me that long term thinking is not at the forefront, even when it might be. What's the harm in giving us 5 bullet points on what is being done in this area? 3. I know there has not been a full-timer assigned to the HHC, but why can't/shouldn't there be? I know that Allison Rubin, Kim Franks (when she was here), and Steve Alleva (possibly others, too) have been liasons to members. From my perspective, they have been helpful generally, and there has been value added, particularly from Steve. But, Steve naturally needs to have a role in several areas because he is good at what he does for McD. The result is that his ability to add greater value might not be maximized. If you assigned a staff member to the HHC for the purpose of streamlining/advancing the website, fundraising, brainstorming, etc., the results will pay for the staffperson's salary by several factors. In the midst of having several liasons, responsibilities for these functions will be blurred. Ambassador: 1. Agreed. I called basketball a potential cash cow, and relative to everything else, it is. That said, there are issues across the board in the athletic department. It's about improving all sports (in performance, in fundraising, in facilities). 2. Again, I'm just not sure how far the sharing of info can and should go. And it's not like they're "burying" it - some of this stuff is just streamlining internal processes (admittedly, with external impacts), hiring new people, restructuring responsibilities, etc. At my office, we don't report our basic admin stuff to our Board of Trustees (let alone funders). Do we really need a bullet point from the AD that says "Steve Alleva is good at his job, and he was hired under my watch.", or can't some of this to be anecdotal? 3. Partially agree - again, it's a question of resources...if the Director of Hoyas Unlimited is liaison to ALL of the support clubs, but actually spends the most time working with the Hoop Club (for obvious reasons of scale), does it make sense to have another person who just focuses on the Hoop Club? Not sure. God, I hate the summer.
|
|
lichoya68
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
OK YOUNGINS ARE HERE AND ARE VERY VERY GOOD cant wait GO HOYAS
Posts: 17,440
|
Post by lichoya68 on Jul 6, 2008 10:45:26 GMT -5
ok got my BILL yesterday.. were talking real money folks BUT this program needs money... we got a great coach and program and after seeing the kenner games yesterday we will be sloppy early BUT by march could be something special or SCARY as coach has said in the past. ALOT OF TALENT AND ATHLETICISM AND SPEED AND LENGTH YUP.. soo it should be fun.. expensive but fun.. soooo and they DO need money and that aint even addressing the practice facility DESPERATELY needed just some thoughts.. is it november yet.. ps will they put maryland twerps vs. us in the first round at mickeys house to make sure we play ?? go hoyas
|
|